# Partagas Lusitanias - Fugazi?



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

Lusi on the left is from my collection. I'm confident that it is real. The two Lusis on the right are fugazis in my opinion. They all have triple caps although it may not be apparent in the photos. 

The font in “Partagas” is wrong. The font used in the rest of the lettering appears off as well, either muddled looking or too thick. The crown and the shields in the logo in the center of the band completely lack definition. The medallions on either side of the band are poorly embossed if they are embossed at all.

What say you?


----------



## Thurm15 (Jan 28, 2005)

Definately Fake's and bad ones at that.


----------



## xibbumbero (Feb 20, 2006)

My guess is fakes,although I've seen Luci's that dark but the bands are way off. Do they match up size wise? Most if not all fakes I've seen are off in the size dept. Usually they're too long or short or the ring size is wrong. X


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

I have personally never seen Lusis that dark.
They have always resembled the one on the left.
That and the bands leads me to guess fakes!


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

xibbumbero said:


> My guess is fakes,although I've seen Luci's that dark but the bands are way off. Do they match up size wise? Most if not all fakes I've seen are off in the size dept. Usually they're too long or short or the ring size is wrong. X


*The cigars appear darker than they actually are due to the camera's exposure.*

They are browner and darker than the real Lusis I have though. The real Habanos I have tend to be reddish-brown.

The RG is slightly smaller than the real cigar, but the length is right on.


----------



## RPB67 (Mar 26, 2005)

Just never seen them so dark. The wrappers are definatley off.

The bands look suspect as well. I would have to say Fugazi as well.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

TypeO- said:


> *The cigars appear darker than they actually are due to the camera's exposure.*
> 
> They are browner and darker than the real Lusis I have though. The real Habanos I have tend to be reddish-brown.
> 
> The RG is slightly smaller than the real cigar, but the length is right on.


Having a photo background I figured exposure could affect the color.
However, personally, I went by the one you posted to the left as the barometer. All three in the same photo, regardless of exposure, you captured the main point well.

One more thing I just realized.
I have had about two or three boxes of Lusis and I don't ever recall them having a box press look to them.
They have always been fairly round, just as the one you show to the left.
Note your two other ones have that box press look to them.


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

Blueface said:


> One more thing I just realized. I have had about two or three boxes of Lusis and I don't ever recall them having a box press look to them.
> They have always been fairly round, just as the one you show to the left.
> Note your two other ones have that box press look to them.


They do have a slight box press. Lusitanias come in a dress box as well as a cabinet. I have never ordered a box of Lusis before, but I've heard the dress box will create the box pressed appearance. I have seen this in other cigars.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

TypeO- said:


> They do have a slight box press. Lusitanias come in a dress box as well as a cabinet. I have never ordered a box of Lusis before, but I've heard the dress box will create the box pressed appearance. I have seen this in other cigars.


All of mine have been dress boxes and all have looked just like the one you have on the left.


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

Please take a look at my post in the following thread regarding some Boli CGs. They're suspect too. I would appreciate opinions on those as well.

http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21090&page=2


----------



## Puffy69 (Sep 8, 2005)

I hope wherever you gottem from makes good on your Fugazi's.


----------



## hollywood (Feb 15, 2005)

look pretty bad to me! hope they aren't coming from another member here!?!? that get's ugly real quick!!


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

what does the foot of the cigars look like compared to the foot of the real one (looking at the tobacco that is wrapped inside)? 

when someone on here accidentally acquired fakes then sold some, they were quite obvious just by looking at the foot of the cigar.

the best way is to smoke one, then cut the biatch open if it tastes off and see if there's any short filler in there.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

IHT said:


> what does the foot of the cigars look like compared to the foot of the real one (looking at the tobacco that is wrapped inside)?
> 
> when someone on here accidentally acquired fakes then sold some, they were quite obvious just by looking at the foot of the cigar.
> 
> the best way is to smoke one, then cut the biatch open if it tastes off and see if there's any short filler in there.


:tpd: They had the maduro wrappers as well. Check the length. The fakes Greg refers to were a tad long as well.

Post a pic looking directly at the foot from the end of yours plus the maduro's.


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

I've seen bands like that on real cigars, it seems to me that current bands have an extra emphasis on embossing and really shiny boronze powder, as opposed to the other two which to me look just like other partagas bands I have seen. Same thing with the font. But the RG looks thin, and if it was an entire box of these similarly thin Lusitanias, then there's no way you would get a box press like that consistently. The boxes are too big to allow it. I think I may have seen one of these cigars and the wrapper was alot like a Cameroon, like a Hemi. Same RG, same press. But I just got a thin box of Coro that were fantastic. I just felt slightly used. Truth is, people bitch alot about thinking they are getting fakes, I get immune to the horror.


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

To me the two right cigars seem to be wrapped with a high quality nicaraguan wrapper similar to one you would see on a Padron anniversary. At times they look lie Connecticut Broadleaf, but thin. It even looks like a Cameroon, but I'd bet, not very Cuban-looking. Put that together with the Bolis on the other page and I would say you have a clever faker somewhere in the chain. Again, on the Partagas bands, I have seen them pretty bad. Band quality and consistency, at least consistency, is way overblown as a tell.


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

The suspected fugazi is on the right.

It may be difficult to see in this image, but the RG is slight smaller. Regarding the fake, at its widest two sides, it's about as wide as the real deal. On it's other two sides, it's about 1/16" off. I've posted the picture of the foot as requested. I'm not sure why. What can be determined by looking at the foot?


As far as the length goes, the real cigar is a hair width off of 7 5/8". The fugazi is at 7 9/16". Due to the distortion caused by my digital camera, this can't be seen.


----------



## Puffy69 (Sep 8, 2005)

Blueface said:


> All of mine have been dress boxes and all have looked just like the one you have on the left.


Luci's that are vintage in dress box tend to get a box press to them as well as any other cigar.


----------



## CrazyFool (Oct 2, 2005)

hard to tell... the bands font is my only clue since the depth of any embossing didnt show through. here is a picture of the genuine article from CA


pictures of fake partagas bands....
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Counterfeits/Counterfeit_Page/0,3391,50,00.html


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Rock Star said:


> Luci's that are vintage in dress box tend to get a box press to them as well as any other cigar.


Wouldn't doubt anything being possible but the boxes I have gotten, the box press look, if any, resembles the cigar he pictured to the left at the onset of this thread. 
The two cigars he has pictured to the right, that are in question, have a very significant box press to them, more so than I have ever seen with mine or those gifted to me.


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

I Had never heard the term fugazi unil yesterday on this thread.. I was wandering.. hmmm whats fugazi. Then late last night I watched Donni Brasco. "That diamond is a fugazi" aaaah... I get it now!!!

What odd timing.


----------



## jgros001 (Jun 14, 2005)

TypeO- said:


> What can be determined by looking at the foot?


Sometimes you can see that there is more than leaves used for filler - twigs, etc

Also, you can look to see how the filler was wrapped - booked or entubular. Booking is an easier process and used many times on fakes. These are the things I would be looking for. A search can find you some drawings of the difference between entubular (not sure if I am spelling this right) and booking.


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

Rock Star said:


> Luci's that are vintage in dress box tend to get a box press to them as well as any other cigar.


My point is that if the cigars are a few points shy of the proper ring gauge, they will not press that much in the properly sized Partagas Lusitania Dress Box..just raised my eyebrows a little. The wrapper to me was the biggest eye-opener.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

hollywood said:


> look pretty bad to me! hope they aren't coming from another member here!?!? that get's ugly real quick!!


Well ... it really depends on how it is handled.

There should be a no-questions-asked return policy for all splits/sales. Thats what my policy is .... don't like anything send it back and I'll reimburse cost plus shipping. And if you find you had fakes contact everybody involved. Solves potential problems that can come up.

Other problem arises when somebody thinks they were given fakes and the seller has doubts. In this case, the seller needs to accept, move on, let people know and reimburse. You take a risk as a seller like that, thats why a lot of people won't want to be the splitter. Last time there was a big mess, the seller ended up being out big money returning shipping costs.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

One more point. 

Communication is the key here. If somebody is unresponsive to me after I contact them it makes me feel like I've been had, rather than somebody else got hoodwinked and I got pulled into it. When I received boxes of fake RyJ 01 robustos last year from a commercial source that had performed admirably earlier, they wouldn't return emails, and blew me off. Thats not how to run a business and its not how to treat somebody else who might have bought some smokes from you. I'll never buy from them again and I have no problem telling people who they are. Word spreads ... around. When I received fakes from a fellow here, he responded immediately and provided a swift refund. You can't do any better than that under the circumstances.


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

SeanGAR said:


> One more point.
> 
> Communication is the key here. If somebody is unresponsive to me after I contact them it makes me feel like I've been had, rather than somebody else got hoodwinked and I got pulled into it. When I received boxes of fake RyJ 01 robustos last year from a commercial source that had performed admirably earlier, they wouldn't return emails, and blew me off. Thats not how to run a business and its not how to treat somebody else who might have bought some smokes from you. I'll never buy from them again and I have no problem telling people who they are. Word spreads ... around. When I received fakes from a fellow here, he responded immediately and provided a swift refund. You can't do any better than that under the circumstances.


Sean, thank you for the post. I wholeheartedly agree. Communication is *extremely* important in a situation such as this. There is nothing worse than being a buyer, i.e. me, sitting around all weekend wondering if you've been defrauded of your money or if there's been an honest mistake made. It is imperative that the seller take responsibility and settle the issue immediately upon being notified. If it was not known to the seller that the cigars were fake, it is not acceptable to pass his loss onto another and simply ignore the issue. If the seller knew they were fakes, this is simply inexcusable.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i've been PM'ed that someone may be passing fakes around the board (again).

were these sold to you?

PM me more details if you want.


----------



## cazadore (Jan 1, 2000)

Despite someone else's comment to the contrary, I have NEVER seen bands like the two cigars on the right have on REAL Partagas cigars. If you think you have, I would question those cigars and their source. 

I HAVE, however, seen those bands on FAKES. The shields are completely different. Not a snowball's chance in hell those are real, imo.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

cazadore said:


> Despite someone else's comment to the contrary, I have NEVER seen bands like the two cigars on the right have on REAL Partagas cigars. If you think you have, I would question those cigars and their source.
> 
> I HAVE, however, seen those bands on FAKES. The shields are completely different. Not a snowball's chance in hell those are real, imo.


thanks for the info, Oedi.

i've gotten a lot of PMs today, seems there's at least 3 ppl that are being suspected of selling/trading/whatever some fakes. don't know if they know they are fake, or even if they really are fakes...

this goes back to 
A) knowing your source
B) knowing who you're trading/buying from
C) having a clue about cuban cigars in general

hopefully this will all get straightened out.


----------



## cohibaguy (Feb 22, 2006)

never seen such dark wrappers on lusitanias... most probably fakes...

try them anyhow 

cohibaguy


----------



## benjamin831 (Nov 22, 2005)

so when did lusis have H2000 wrappers?

i call fugazi


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

The mantra is "know thy source." 

This issue has been resolved with the seller. The seller trusts his sources and feels the cigars are real, I still feel otherwise, but the seller honorably refunded my money. 

Thanks for all of your inputs and opinions in this thread.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

to be honest, i could not tell from the photos if they were real/fake.
the proof is in the pudding (smoking, disecting).

iv'e had some seriously dark (non-EL) wrapped cigars before, darker than those Lusi's.

type-o even said that they're lighter in person, so maybe judging it by the color of the wrapper in a photo isn't so good for us.
and, a 1/16th inch difference in length is nothing out of the ordinary here either.
the bands do look different, but that isn't the only thing we should go off of, although someone responded he's never seen real Lusis with bands like those, and i respect his knowledge on the issue....

so, we're back to taste and whats on the inside.

good move by the seller, though. stand up act to take em back.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

Glad it worked out.


----------



## tecnorobo (Mar 29, 2005)

Thanks for this thread. A decent amount of information to be learned here.
typeo, are you returning the cigars?

I just happen to be curious as to how they smoked (if you haven't already)


----------



## TypeO- (Jan 4, 2006)

tecnorobo said:


> Thanks for this thread. A decent amount of information to be learned here.
> typeo, are you returning the cigars?
> 
> I just happen to be curious as to how they smoked (if you haven't already)


I am returning the cigars. I didn't smoke one. I heard from an individual who purchased Lusis from the same source/batch that the cigar tasted bad. As I said, the seller is confident that the cigars are authentic. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and take his word. However, my eyes and nose aren't comfortable with them. I have to give credit to the seller for making things right.


----------



## DonJefe (Dec 1, 2003)

Glad to see this was resolved!


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

DonJefe said:


> Glad to see this was resolved!


now onto the others that are supposedly floating around...

:hn

anyone making any headway with that?


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

I don't know, these bands look alot like the right-most bands in the photos on page 1, and they are attached to authentic Lusitanias. I have seen the ultra-slick bands on the left on my newer Partagas, but to me the use of that font was not bothersome in light of the same nightmare over the original Boli-switch. Bands to me are always easy to point to after the case for fake has been made by half a dozen other things, IMO. The font for the word Partagas has thinned up significantly and lost it's old-style look. Like I said, when Bolivar did this, the shite storm didn't cool for some time.


----------



## One Lonely Smoker (Jan 21, 2005)

One Lonely Smoker said:


> as opposed to the other two which to me look just like other partagas bands I have seen. Same thing with the font.


I see now how sloppily this was worded and how it could be taken as no big deal. I say I have seen bands that bad, not commonly, but when I have seen bands that bad, particularly in 01-03 smokes, they have not been wrapped around fakes. There is a big trend toward a repolishing and re-tooling of the havana bands, from the early change in Bolivar, the next change in Monte, then Boli, Partagas and Hoyo. It's not uncommon to see two bands from a five year period and see huge problems. That's why tools like the CA site are somewhat misleading when taken too literally. It's there, it's a good resource and it helps some people who really get taken, but if they went into their routine on Bolivar Bela Lugosis bands alone, the possibilities are endless. I've got at least a half dozen Boli bands that are all across the spectum, all real I would say. SO yeah, I wasn't trying to say that that type of band condition is "the old style, pre chrome" version and is real every time you see it. Just that some of these bands are notorious.


----------



## cazadore (Jan 1, 2000)

I have to disagree that the Lusi pictured on the left in the above thumbnail is legit, based on the band. Look at the DESIGN of the *shields*. It's not just that it's poorly printed. The DESIGN is different. There is a cross of the upper left square within the shield of the legit band. That is not a cross design on the other band. Also the design in the lower right square is also different.

That said, it IS Cuba. Shit happens. Bottom line, as has been stated, "Know Your Source".


----------

